[MxSK]

(Original post by Stalin)
Iran is also fairly obvious because of the Russian-built nuclear reactors, and would give Moscow serious muscle over Iranian nuclear talks.

No to iran.
One ****ty russian-built reactor that still isn't operational after 40 years of construction doesn't really mean much. IRI has (quietly and subtly) expressed frustration at the Russians apart reluctance of taking the nuclear reactor seriously.

Remember that Russia backed out of sale of the S300 anti-missile systems due to US requests. Which made iran furious and tried to sue but went no where...

Also, i think if you follow the talks you would see that Moscow is firmly on the Chinese, EU and US side in the negotiations. its 5+1 vs Iran, not Iran+Russia v 5(minus1)+1.
In moscow june talks just past, during the bilateral talks with russia and china, iran tried hard to rip russia and china apart from the EU+US but failed. Russia and China towed the P5+1 line all the way through.

But the most important point, iranian and russian animosity goes much deeper than us-iran relations. The united states is on the other side of the world. Russia chopped away iranian territory for the last several centuries.
It would be helpful to note that iranian-russian collaboration is out of necessity in the absence of US-Iran ties...

Interesting, related, little talked about and terrifying fact that i only found out about recently:
Did you know that in 1980 the united states almost dropped a nuclear bomb in north-west iran to prevent russians from invading/gaining signifcant influence in iran? Specifcllly north-west iran, because they did not want it to touch russian territory as this was the cold war and wanted to avoid retaliation. US military strategists determined that in the worst case scenario, Russia would respond by bombing Bandar Abbas and the US thought this was an acceptable risk to take.
They had the plans set, and the authorisation+go-ahead if russia showed indications of advancing...
Sounds insane but apparently its true...
(Source: Pentagon historian David Crist )

[Stalin]

(Original post by MxSK)
No to iran.
One ****ty russian-built reactor that still isn't operational after 40 years of construction doesn't really mean much. IRI has (quietly and subtly) expressed frustration at the Russians apart reluctance of taking the nuclear reactor seriously.

Remember that Russia backed out of sale of the S300 anti-missile systems due to US requests. Which made iran furious and tried to sue but went no where...

Also, i think if you follow the talks you would see that Moscow is firmly on the Chinese, EU and US side in the negotiations. its 5+1 vs Iran, not Iran+Russia v 5(minus1)+1.
In moscow june talks just past, during the bilateral talks with russia and china, iran tried hard to rip russia and china apart from the EU+US but failed. Russia and China towed the P5+1 line all the way through.

But the most important point, iranian and russian animosity goes much deeper than us-iran relations. The united states is on the other side of the world. Russia chopped away iranian territory for the last several centuries.
It would be helpful to note that iranian-russian collaboration is out of necessity in the absence of US-Iran ties...

Interesting, related, little talked about and terrifying fact that i only found out about recently:
Did you know that in 1980 the united states almost dropped a nuclear bomb in north-west iran to prevent russians from invading/gaining signifcant influence in iran? Specifcllly north-west iran, because they did not want it to touch russian territory as this was the cold war and wanted to avoid retaliation. US military strategists determined that in the worst case scenario, Russia would respond by bombing Bandar Abbas and the US thought this was an acceptable risk to take.
They had the plans set, and the authorisation+go-ahead if russia showed indications of advancing...
Sounds insane but apparently its true...
(Source: Pentagon historian David Crist )

It would obviously require Russia to lean slightly towards Iran, but if they wanted a naval presence in the Gulf, it'd be the only way to do it - because every other Gulf is aligned to the US.

Ultimately, however, it depends entirely on Russia's strategic interests. Why establish a base in the Caribbean when there is very little, if nothing, to gain? The Gulf/Indian Ocean is far more lucrative, not only due to oil but because it will only strengthen Russia's influence in a part of the world which is intensifying and will become the major battleground of the 21st century.

(Pretty shocking about the US almost nuking Iran - Tabriz if I'm not mistaken?)

[Stalin]

Apparent U-turn on the planned overseas naval bases.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19022178

Oh, Russia, you never cease to amaze me.

[DorianGrayism]

I really doubt that the US would be stupid enough to drop a Nuclear Bomb on Iranian territory to stop the Russians gaining influence.

Just sounds like someone trying to make a name for themselves by trying got be sensationalist and failing.

[Aj12]

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE

Apparently Iraq has discovered an arms deal between the Kurds and an unnamed country, anyone want to guess who the country was and why they would want to arm the Kurds?

[Stalin]

(Original post by Aj12)
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE

Apparently Iraq has discovered an arms deal between the Kurds and an unnamed country, anyone want to guess who the country was and why they would want to arm the Kurds?

Saudi Arabia and/or Qatar arming the Iraqi Kurds to join their Syrian brethren and deal with Assad?

[Aj12]

(Original post by Stalin)
Saudi Arabia and/or Qatar arming the Iraqi Kurds to join their Syrian brethren and deal with Assad?

I'd be surprised. Surely they must know they could end up causing them problems in future? Or at least they will cause Turkey and Iraq problems.

[Stalin]

(Original post by Aj12)
I'd be surprised. Surely they must know they could end up causing them problems in future? Or at least they will cause Turkey and Iraq problems.

Kurdish fighters returning to Syria from a training camp in Dohuk (Iraqi Kurdistan). Note when the video was posted.

I don't understand why the Iraqi Kurds would cause Baghdad any problems now that they have their own autonomous region. Turkey's a different question, but the Saudis care more about the regime change in Syria than a handful of Kurdish fighters annoying Turkey.

[Aj12]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ucus&seid=auto

Check out Romney's speech laying out his support for Israel.

[Stalin]

(Original post by Aj12)
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ucus&seid=auto

Check out Romney's speech laying out his support for Israel.

The speech has 'yes, master Zionist, I'll do whatever you want me to do' written all over it - but this is hardly surprising considering Romney's campaign was heavily financed by wealthy Jews. Bet your bottom dollar on the US going to war with Iran if he becomes Commander-in-Chief.

[Aj12]

(Original post by Stalin)
The speech has 'yes, master Zionist, I'll do whatever you want me to do' written all over it - but this is hardly surprising considering Romney's campaign was heavily financed by wealthy Jews. Bet your bottom dollar on the US going to war with Iran if he becomes Commander-in-Chief.

Still candidates always use really harsh rhetoric on the election route. Obama said much the same about China as Romney is saying now, he wants to brand them a currency manipulator ect yet never did it.

It's interesting to see what Romney is saying but I wonder how much of it will be put in place if he gets to the white house.

[Stalin]

(Original post by Aj12)
Still candidates always use really harsh rhetoric on the election route.

Sure, but don't you think there's a reason that underpins every presidential candidate's rhetoric for Israel instead of Taiwan?

Obama said much the same about China as Romney is saying now, he wants to brand them a currency manipulator ect yet never did it.

Romney has been considerably more vociferous in his attacks against China than Obama ever has. However, unlike China's currency manipulation, its massive **** off to copyright, and US presidential candidates claiming to put an end to it if they become president, which will never happen, strikes on Iran's nuclear reactors could easily occur under President Romney for two reasons:

(1) he has been beating the drums of war for quite some time now, labeling Iran as the biggest threat to Israel, the US and the world; and his foreign policy can be summed up in four letters an I, an R, an A and an N. Rarely does he ever mention anything else he would do as president - only recently, for example, did he mention Syria and the Islamists' win in Egypt.

(2) the Iranian nuclear weapon clock, according to Netanyahu, Romney and various other neocons, is still ticking. Every month there's a new interview detailing Iran's programme and how Israel will not sit idly by and let it acquire a nuclear weapon - there's a good chance in the next four years, as false information is acquired about Iran, that Commander-in-Chief Romney will succumb to the Israeli pressure and to donors who funded his campaign.

It's interesting to see what Romney is saying but I wonder how much of it will be put in place if he gets to the white house.

Hopefully he and whoever his VP is become vegetables the day Romney is sworn into office, resulting in someone with half a brain overseeing America's foreign policy - but that will never happen and Iran will be bombed.

[MxSK]

Foreign Policy Article: Egyptian liberals lost badly in the post-revolution scramble for power -- and now they're in deep denial as many embrace conspiracy theories about the United States.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...river_in_egypt

I saw this coming... lol. The shah and his people said the exact same things post-1979... and 30 years later many iranians in and out the country actually believe in the theories these days. In fact, literally 3 days ago there was a 2.5 hour documentary shown in iran on one of the v. popular satellite channels where it was basically an interview with the former queen talking about the revolution from her perspective and it was filled with her, without explicitly spelling it out, hinting at these US-mullah conspiracy theories.

[Organ]

(Original post by Aj12)
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE

Apparently Iraq has discovered an arms deal between the Kurds and an unnamed country, anyone want to guess who the country was and why they would want to arm the Kurds?

Gulf State or the Americans.

[MxSK]

Iran is eyeing a strategic partnership with the kurds
The ongoing political realignment in the region is throwing up some surprising potential partnerships.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/features...emium-1.455095

I don't know how much of what the article suggests is accurate, but it's an interesting analysis. I think he might be wildly speculating but that doesn't necessarily mean what he says will turn out to be completely wrong...

[MxSK]

Apparently, Kofi Annan has resigned.

[MxSK]

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...ence-game.html

The US military has been carrying out "influence games" at MacDill airforce base planning for a year from now. Their scenario of one year from now includes a no-fly zone over syria, Assad still being in power albeit injured from attempted assassination, and iran being invited to the "table" along side turkey, arab league, us + russia, possibly from a deal in exchange for halting 20% enrichment.


Doesn't necessarily mean it will turn out this way, but they used a process to do the simulation and so they're planning for it none-the-less, to avoid "making the same mistakes as in iraq and afghanistan".

many more details from the games in the link ^ The article explains the process that the group used to simulate the next year that led them to reach the scenario described.

[Stalin]

(Original post by MxSK)
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/orig...ence-game.html

The US military has been carrying out "influence games" at MacDill airforce base planning for a year from now. Their scenario of one year from now includes a no-fly zone over syria, Assad still being in power albeit injured from attempted assassination, and iran being invited to the "table" along side turkey, arab league, us + russia, possibly from a deal in exchange for halting 20% enrichment.


Doesn't necessarily mean it will turn out this way, but they used a process to do the simulation and so they're planning for it none-the-less, to avoid "making the same mistakes as in iraq and afghanistan".

many more details from the games in the link ^ The article explains the process that the group used to simulate the next year that led them to reach the scenario described.

Do you reckon you could find out the name of the song in the trailer for me? I think the guy's called Hichkas, but I have no idea what he's saying and can't find anything on Google

(Original post by Democracy)
x

Use your magical farsi powers please.

[MxSK]

(Original post by Stalin)


Do you reckon you could find out the name of the song in the trailer for me? I think the guy's called Hichkas, but I have no idea what he's saying and can't find anything on Google

Sure, i know this song

It's not hichkas, its Shahin Najafi and the song is called Ma Sharrim
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zywl4U6aAdQ

More info on Shahin Najafi, he's been in the news lately due to this song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rDXhjIN030
lyrics in the description

Two ayatollahs put a fatwa on his life for that song ^

he doesn't only do rap:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJqSnzvBIeU

More info on shahin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahin_Najafi

Other songs that i like from him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-i7_wzxRek
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUf23GcT924 (video is clips from popular movie "Marmoulak" where it subtly mocks clerics throughout the whole film)

His main thing is his lyrics so a lot of it is lost if you can't understand.

[Dirac Delta Function]

Reports that Britons were among Islamist militants who kidnapped and wounded two photographers in Syria are being taken "very seriously" by ministers, the Foreign Office has said.

The claims were made by photographers John Cantlie and Jeroen Oerlemans, who were held at a camp for a week in July.

The Foreign Office said it was closely "monitoring the situation".

The Free Syrian Army group, which is part of the opposition trying to oust Bashar al-Assad, helped them to escape.

Mr Cantlie, who is British, and his Dutch colleague, Mr Oerlemans, were both wounded in a "shooting gallery" as their thwarted captors fired after the fleeing men.

The kidnapping took place amid the ongoing conflict in Syria.

Heavy fighting is continuing in the country's second city, Aleppo, amid concerns that the army will launch a full-scale assault within days.

Activists say more than 20,000 people - mostly civilians - have died in 17 months of unrest.

Jihadists - those committed to establishing an Islamic state by violent means - have started to be seen on the battlefield in Syria.

The FSA is said to be scrutinising jihadists in Syria very closely.


They are considered to be "a real threat after the Assad regime falls", a senior FSA officer told the BBC.

Mr Cantlie told BBC Radio 4's Broadcasting House programme he and his colleague were regularly threatened with death.

"When you're held captive, you're blindfolded and you have a guy sticking a gun at your head, it's very real," he said.

"It was inferred that we would meet our God. We had sowed the seeds of our own destruction. We would be shot or beheaded.

"At one point they even started sharpening knives for a beheading. It was pretty frightening."


The photographer said he entered Syria across the border with Turkey, using the same route and guide that he had earlier in the year.

But on this occasion he and his companions were detained after passing through a camp inhabited by Islamic jihadists who, he said, were not from Syria.

"They were from anywhere but Syria," he told the BBC.

"They were from Pakistan, Bangladesh, the UK and Chechnya. A real mix."

He said there were "between 10 and 15 young jihadists from the UK" who he described as being "a mixed bunch".

More here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19136630